Canon Cuts Full-Year Forecast as Camera Users Switch to Phones

[Chuck Alaimo]

I just want to bang my head against the wall and scream when I read comments following stories like this. It's as if only Neuro, Chuck and a handful of others actually read the stories.

Photonius had a decent analysis but then pulled a conclusion out of thin air that I'm still scratching my head over.

So, the only way to get a lot of people to buy new cameras is with a substantial innovation in sensor technology.

Was that intended as sarcasm or a joke?

no, just some unfinished thought left standing. I meant if you want to get existing owners to upgrade (and thus create a new purchase cycle, ( like in the past from 4 to 10 MPs or whatever), you really need some mouthwatering new features, e.g. a new sensor that is a serious jump over all current products, or some other neat feature that's not just a gimmick. Live view was a pretty neat feature when it came.
Of course sensors are very mature at this point, so it's difficult to see how that could improve a lot, but the dual pixels of the sensor in the 70D could be a precursor to a whole bunch of things.

Ha! Now I understand.

I was confused because your post was so thoughtful and rational and then all of a sudden it seemed like you took a peculiar turn. I certainly agree with the basic premise. Just his week I succumbed to a 5DIII. I hesitate to say an "upgrade" from the 7D, because I still love the 7D and intend to keep using it.

I debated long and hard between a 6D, waiting for the 7DII and pulling out, what for me was, all the stops and going for a 5DIII. Part of my justification was that it is so good I think it will satisfy me for years to come. I think a challenge facing all camera makers, but especially Canon and Nikon, is that their products are now so good that there is little reason for buyers to jump to the next generation.

So, I guess I agree with the premise that it will take some "mouth watering" new features to get many current owners to upgrade. Personally, I'm not sure that for full frame sensors there is much that can be done to entice current owners. I'm amazed at how well the 5DIII sells (check out Amazon's best selling DSLRs). It's incredible to me that a $3,000 camera is selling as well as $500 cameras. I've got to think that many of those buyers are like me – rationalizing it as a camera that will satisfy them for the next 10 years or so.

With APS-C I think there is still sufficient room for improvement to entice current owners to upgrade. If the 7DII makes some significant improvements in the sensor, I'll have a hard time resisting. But, I'll also want 5D quality autofocus and a few other goodies.

Frankly, I think another challenge all manufacturers face is not only that the technology has matured, but the customer base is aging out. I think it is going to be very hard for Canon and Nikon to attract younger buyers and I think some of the their recent models show they are pretty desperately trying anything they can think of, but don't seem to be having much success.

The best hope for Canon and Nikon (at least temporarily) may be an expanding world economy. If the economies in the currently underdeveloped world improve, they may get a temporary boost, as they have with China. Other than that, I'm guessing all manufacturers will have to learn to live with a market that is growing at a much slower pace than in the past several years.

Canon and Nikon may actually be the best positioned to adapt to the changing market, because until the explosion of digital technology, I'm pretty sure the growth in the film and SLR market was pretty modest.

Very good points -especially the bit about the economy in general shrinking.

 

[CarlTN]

Very good points -especially the bit about the economy in general shrinking.

At some point you run out of other people's money.

 

[dgatwood]

Canon's biggest problem is pretty much the same as Apple's right before Steve came back. Their R&D is spread across too many products that are poorly and inconsistently differentiated, and there's no single product that is clearly and unambiguously the best. The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use). The 5Dmk3, in turn, kills the 6D in autofocus but doesn't compare in low light noise or in end-user features like GPS and Wi-Fi. And so on.

Canon needs to drastically simplify their body lineup to at most four cameras—a consumer crop (70D, presumably), a pro crop (7D), a consumer full-frame (6D), and a pro full-frame (1D with a bigger sensor). Every camera should have features like Wi-Fi and GPS. The pro bodies should have additional features like more autofocus points. Other than crop factor, the two pro bodies should have similar features to one another, the consumer bodies should have similar features to one another, and every single feature on either of the consumer bodies should be available on both of the pro bodies.

Oh, and dump the mirrorless line. It was a failed experiment. Or at best, make it electronically identical to the consumer crop body, just in a different case, with the mirror box headers unpopulated, and with slightly different firmware.

Canon also needs to update their products in pairs. Update the consumer products at the same time, then the pro products, with each line getting an annual bump. This should be made more feasible by dropping the Rebel line entirely and merging the 5D and 1D lines.

Just my $0.02.

 

[CarlTN]

The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use).

The sensors are the same size, but perhaps you meant ultimate image size in pixels? Probably you did not. There is no more aps-h (1.3x crop), so not sure why you think the sensor is smaller on the 1DX.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/slr_cameras/eos_1d_x#Specifications

"Image Format Approx. 36 mm x 24mm (35 mm Full-frame)"

Not sure I completely agree with your strategy. Things will change over time to the product line and differentiation, no doubt. Again, Canon are interested in medium format...so that throws another wrinkle in. The future will be interesting, and very likely, expensive.

The problem with the 1 series now, is there is no studio model, there's only a catch-all model that is mostly for sports. As has been said many times by many people, Canon were miffed that the 5D2 cut heavily into, if not partially killed...sales of the 1Ds III, back in 2008. So it's kind of understandable that they weren't in a hurry to build another 1 series studio camera. They will, though. The problem is the sensor.

 

[noisejammer]

[rant]
I am delighted with this news!

Here's why. I have something like $30k in EF mount lenses. Some are Canon, some are not but they are all premium offerings. I have a couple of cameras - a 1D4 and 5D2. I didn't really see much point in upgrading last time around because I don't need faster autofocus.

I'm trapped, I really resent Canon's unwillingness to compete where it matters to me. If I sold my lenses I'd be down around $10k... and anyway, Nikon does things backward.

Here is my message ... I NEED LESS NOISE ...

I'm not going to spend kilodollars on a camera that's just like the one I have. Nevertheless, in nine months or fewer, I will own a $3k, high resolution, low noise camera that carries my lenses. It's up to Canon to decide whether they build it.

Finally, I think that blaming the declining sales on economies is limp-wristed face-saving. Many of the world's economies are doing quite fine. The real issue is well earned customer apathy.

[/rant]

 

[CarlTN]

[rant]
I am delighted with this news!

Here's why. I have something like $30k in EF mount lenses. Some are Canon, some are not but they are all premium offerings. I have a couple of cameras - a 1D4 and 5D2. I didn't really see much point in upgrading last time around because I don't need faster autofocus.

I'm trapped, I really resent Canon's unwillingness to compete where it matters to me. If I sold my lenses I'd be down around $10k... and anyway, Nikon does things backward.

Here is my message ... I NEED LESS NOISE ...

I'm not going to spend kilodollars on a camera that's just like the one I have. Nevertheless, in nine months or less, I will own a $3k, high resolution, low noise camera that carries my lenses. It's up to Canon to decide whether they build it.

Finally, I think that blaming the declining sales on economies is limp-wristed face-saving. Many of the world's economies are doing quite fine. The real issue is well earned customer apathy.

[/rant]

Spend half that on a 6D now, sell the other two, and rent a 1DX...and tell me it doesn't have lower noise than the 1D4. It does...and has better autofocus. As I said above, Canon will bring you a high megapixel studio camera with low noise, but be prepared to pay big for it. If you'd rather use Nikon for the here and now, certainly a D800 is a cheaper and quicker alternative to waiting for a Canon studio camera. They've sold the D800 new as low as $2600 recently, and may again...I personally will pass.

 

[jd7]

Canon's biggest problem is pretty much the same as Apple's right before Steve came back. Their R&D is spread across too many products that are poorly and inconsistently differentiated, and there's no single product that is clearly and unambiguously the best. The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use). The 5Dmk3, in turn, kills the 6D in autofocus but doesn't compare in low light noise or in end-user features like GPS and Wi-Fi. And so on.

I have no idea about Canon's R&D budget is spread out, but after watching for the last 10 years or so I've come to the conclusion Canon might, just might, have some idea about making mass-market cameras! The don't always have the very best of everything (think sensors at the moment!), and they often don't have the best specifications in their class (for example, as far as I can tell, Nikon's comparable cameras nearly always have "better" numbers - more zones in their metering matrix, etc, etc), but the Canon cameras still turn out to be great photographic tools ... especially in the context of Canon's overall system. Take the 6D. Many people (including me) were underwhelmed by its specs sheet ... but now the 6D seems to have developed a pretty good reputation and be selling well ... and I'm one of its buyers. Certainly it has its limitations, but it's a good camera which can satisfy the needs of a lot of people. And it seems to be doing better at that than many of its competitors, whatever their spec sheets may say.

I also think Canon has very clearly differentiated its cameras - certainly its 35mm sensor ones. The 1Dx seems unambiguously the "best" because of its ability to deal with the widest range of conditions and speed requirements. The 5DIII has a higher resolution sensor, but overall seems a clear step down - by all reports the files aren't as flexible, it's FPS is much slower, by all reports the AF isn't quite as good even though the systems are similar. And of course the 5DIII ergonomics are quite different, particular the smaller body - a positive for some and a negative for others. Anyway, the choice is clear - if you want a smaller/lighter camera than a 1Dx, or more resolution is a critical requirement, the 5DIII is your choice (I'll ignore cost issues for now). And then there's the 6D. If you can live with a more limited AF system for tracking moving subjects and focusing on off-centre targets, and the x-sync speed - or smaller and lighter is critical to you - it will give great images and at a significantly lower cost. And I think the reality for a lot of people is they can live with those limitations because, as much as they might like to have a camera with fancier specs, in practice their photography doesn't really need it. And Canon threw in a few bells and whistles too, such as wifi and GPS, presumably to help attract some of the upgraders - but I doubt there are too many 5DIII who are coveting a 6D just because of wifi and GPS. (I'm sure there are some 5DIII owners who'd be happy to have the features, I'm just saying I struggle to believe the majority of 5DIII owners would rate wifi and GPS as that important, at least in comparison to the advantages the 5DIII over the 6D.)

Oh, and dump the mirrorless line. It was a failed experiment. Or at best, make it electronically identical to the consumer crop body, just in a different case, with the mirror box headers unpopulated, and with slightly different firmware.

The EOS M does seem to have a been a bit disappointing, even if the firmware upgrade helped a bit. I find it interesting Canon hasn't really gone after the mirrorless market, but the question is why haven't they? Is it really as simple as not wanting to cannibalise their DSLR sales, or is there more to it than that? Perhaps Canon thinks mirrorless won't really deliver the promise/hope of a significantly lighter/smaller system (including lenses) unless the sensor size is reduced (like m4/3) but thinks the IQ possibilities of larger sensors are more important to the market it's going after? Perhaps Canon doesn't think mirrorless offers enough genuine benefits over a DSLR (at least mid to high range DSLRs) as a photographic tool, that it's worth it at this point? Will that change in future with advances in technology like EVF, batteries (to drive the EVF!), and AF (and the 70D sensor tech hints Canon could be working on that one, at least)? Perhaps I'm giving Canon too much credit?! Anyway, I look forward to seeing what the camera landscape looks like in the next year or two - will 35mm mirrorless be taking over, or will be a short term fad which ends up a niche player but fails to push out DSLRs? I've got to say the attraction of the OVF (for many people, I believe) means I'm not convinced DSLRs are going to die out that quickly, but we'll have to see.

Just my $0.02.

With my $0.02, we're up to $0.04 now I guess

 

[photonius]

I just want to bang my head against the wall and scream when I read comments following stories like this. It's as if only Neuro, Chuck and a handful of others actually read the stories.

Photonius had a decent analysis but then pulled a conclusion out of thin air that I'm still scratching my head over.

So, the only way to get a lot of people to buy new cameras is with a substantial innovation in sensor technology.

Was that intended as sarcasm or a joke?

no, just some unfinished thought left standing. I meant if you want to get existing owners to upgrade (and thus create a new purchase cycle, ( like in the past from 4 to 10 MPs or whatever), you really need some mouthwatering new features, e.g. a new sensor that is a serious jump over all current products, or some other neat feature that's not just a gimmick. Live view was a pretty neat feature when it came.
Of course sensors are very mature at this point, so it's difficult to see how that could improve a lot, but the dual pixels of the sensor in the 70D could be a precursor to a whole bunch of things.

Ha! Now I understand.

I was confused because your post was so thoughtful and rational and then all of a sudden it seemed like you took a peculiar turn. I certainly agree with the basic premise. Just his week I succumbed to a 5DIII. I hesitate to say an "upgrade" from the 7D, because I still love the 7D and intend to keep using it.

I debated long and hard between a 6D, waiting for the 7DII and pulling out, what for me was, all the stops and going for a 5DIII. Part of my justification was that it is so good I think it will satisfy me for years to come. I think a challenge facing all camera makers, but especially Canon and Nikon, is that their products are now so good that there is little reason for buyers to jump to the next generation.

So, I guess I agree with the premise that it will take some "mouth watering" new features to get many current owners to upgrade. Personally, I'm not sure that for full frame sensors there is much that can be done to entice current owners. I'm amazed at how well the 5DIII sells (check out Amazon's best selling DSLRs). It's incredible to me that a $3,000 camera is selling as well as $500 cameras. I've got to think that many of those buyers are like me – rationalizing it as a camera that will satisfy them for the next 10 years or so.

With APS-C I think there is still sufficient room for improvement to entice current owners to upgrade. If the 7DII makes some significant improvements in the sensor, I'll have a hard time resisting. But, I'll also want 5D quality autofocus and a few other goodies.

Frankly, I think another challenge all manufacturers face is not only that the technology has matured, but the customer base is aging out. I think it is going to be very hard for Canon and Nikon to attract younger buyers and I think some of the their recent models show they are pretty desperately trying anything they can think of, but don't seem to be having much success.

The best hope for Canon and Nikon (at least temporarily) may be an expanding world economy. If the economies in the currently underdeveloped world improve, they may get a temporary boost, as they have with China. Other than that, I'm guessing all manufacturers will have to learn to live with a market that is growing at a much slower pace than in the past several years.

Canon and Nikon may actually be the best positioned to adapt to the changing market, because until the explosion of digital technology, I'm pretty sure the growth in the film and SLR market was pretty modest.

customer base is aging out.
Yes, that's what I sort of was thinking of also with my point 3 - no newcomers. Older people grew up in an age without digital devices. Snapshots where taken with polariod, or Instamatics, later P&S cameras. A bit more serious users would have had to get an SLR. But the sensor was exchangeable (film - no upgrade incentive for the body), and once you had a decent body, it could last a long time. AF was a technological breakthrough, leading to be an upgrade cycle. So, the old-time SLR customer base is certainly one that can be catered to with dSLRs.
However, young people of the P&S variety (what would have been a polaroid/instamatic customer base etc. in the past) are satisfied with their smart phones now. I don't think most of these would ever have been customers of SLRs in the past either. The customer segment that sticks with smart phones nowadays might perhaps be larger than the comparable instamatic customer segment of the past, because of the following points:
The display devices and the internet. In the past, for high quality stuff, people would often use slides, to be projected and viewed, perhaps with friends. This is now superseded by monitors and TVs, which presently deliver much less resolution than what cameras deliver. Further, images are quickly spread via internet. So, on the one hand you don't need supergreat resolution, because most display devices don't handle it. Second, you can look now at so many good pictures on the internet, we are virtually flooded by it.
So, a newcomer might think "Do I really need a dSLR" to take yet another picture of a duck or the New York skyline - I'll never compete with what's out there, so I shoot mostly for memories, and the phone will do. So, overall, the incentive to step from a "good enough" to dSLR might be less than in the past, because of all the new technologies.

Seriously, for all the ones clamoring for a D800. How many high-tech landscape images do we need? 99.9 % of people view on monitors or tv, so 36 MPs is mostly overkill. Large prints? How many are really printed big and hung on the limited wall space there is? So, the final market for the full capabilities of a D800 is actually rather limited.


Expanding world economy.
Yes, this is a classic practice for hundreds of years, if your home market is saturated, expand. That's why there was this push for the global economy, to expand markets, to keep the growth model. Alas, who are you going to sell to next? The martians? So, an alternative (taken by e.g. Apple) is innovation - but there is only such much innovation until some technical limitation hits (e.g. how much can you still improve an iphone, it's a similar problem to dSLRs), which requires then a breakthrough again. For many portable devices a real bottleneck is the battery that is limiting, because that limits how much processing power you can stick into the device. Even in a dSLR, if you had more processing power, you could probably jack up many things, providing more precessing power for various features, including imaging processing, i.e. frame rate, automatic lens correction, diffraction reduction, noise reduction, etc.

 

[gwflauto]

Lagging behind the opposition in the mega pixel stakes can't help either

Yeah, that makes sense. I mean, it's not like the 5DIII is outselling the D800, or the 6D is mopping the floor with the D600/610, or the Rebel/xxxD bodies are outselling the D3xxx bodies, right? : : :

Did anybody publish numbers for sales of single models? That would be quite interesting!

 

[Loswr]

Canon's biggest problem is pretty much the same as Apple's right before Steve came back. Their R&D is spread across too many products that are poorly and inconsistently differentiated, and there's no single product that is clearly and unambiguously the best. The supposedly top-of-the-line 1D series clearly wins in terms of most of the pro body features, but loses to the 5Dmk3 in terms of sensor size (limiting its ultra-wide-angle use). The 5Dmk3, in turn, kills the 6D in autofocus but doesn't compare in low light noise...

Just my $0.02.

Apple's biggest problem before Jobs came back was that their market share was dwindling down from it's already minuscule level, and their revenues were in the toilet. Clearly, that's not Canon's biggest problem.

As pointed out above, you're obviously confusing sensor size with MP count, or you have not been paying attention to product releases for the past couple of years - the 1D X, 5DIII, and 6D all have the same size sensor. MP count has absolutely no effect on the angle of view with a given lens mounted - Your statement about limiting UWA use is complete BS. Both the 1D X and the 6D deliver very slightly better noise performance than the 5DIII at the highest ISO settings (6400 and up). That's a far cry from, "Doesn't compare in low light noise."

Sorry, but your 2¢ worth of revisionist history and incorrect facts isn't even worth face value.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Not releasing anything interesting except the 70D could have something to do with it.

Yep. When your competitors are experimenting with new models and new lines, and all you're doing is giving minor updates to your existing stuff, you lose market share. Ask Apple.

???

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

I just want to bang my head against the wall and scream when I read comments following stories like this. It's as if only Neuro, Chuck and a handful of others actually read the stories.

Photonius had a decent analysis but then pulled a conclusion out of thin air that I'm still scratching my head over.

So, the only way to get a lot of people to buy new cameras is with a substantial innovation in sensor technology.

Was that intended as sarcasm or a joke?

no, just some unfinished thought left standing. I meant if you want to get existing owners to upgrade (and thus create a new purchase cycle, ( like in the past from 4 to 10 MPs or whatever), you really need some mouthwatering new features, e.g. a new sensor that is a serious jump over all current products, or some other neat feature that's not just a gimmick. Live view was a pretty neat feature when it came.
Of course sensors are very mature at this point, so it's difficult to see how that could improve a lot, but the dual pixels of the sensor in the 70D could be a precursor to a whole bunch of things.

Ha! Now I understand.

I was confused because your post was so thoughtful and rational and then all of a sudden it seemed like you took a peculiar turn. I certainly agree with the basic premise. Just his week I succumbed to a 5DIII. I hesitate to say an "upgrade" from the 7D, because I still love the 7D and intend to keep using it.

I debated long and hard between a 6D, waiting for the 7DII and pulling out, what for me was, all the stops and going for a 5DIII. Part of my justification was that it is so good I think it will satisfy me for years to come. I think a challenge facing all camera makers, but especially Canon and Nikon, is that their products are now so good that there is little reason for buyers to jump to the next generation.

So, I guess I agree with the premise that it will take some "mouth watering" new features to get many current owners to upgrade. Personally, I'm not sure that for full frame sensors there is much that can be done to entice current owners. I'm amazed at how well the 5DIII sells (check out Amazon's best selling DSLRs). It's incredible to me that a $3,000 camera is selling as well as $500 cameras. I've got to think that many of those buyers are like me – rationalizing it as a camera that will satisfy them for the next 10 years or so.

With APS-C I think there is still sufficient room for improvement to entice current owners to upgrade. If the 7DII makes some significant improvements in the sensor, I'll have a hard time resisting. But, I'll also want 5D quality autofocus and a few other goodies.

Frankly, I think another challenge all manufacturers face is not only that the technology has matured, but the customer base is aging out. I think it is going to be very hard for Canon and Nikon to attract younger buyers and I think some of the their recent models show they are pretty desperately trying anything they can think of, but don't seem to be having much success.

The best hope for Canon and Nikon (at least temporarily) may be an expanding world economy. If the economies in the currently underdeveloped world improve, they may get a temporary boost, as they have with China. Other than that, I'm guessing all manufacturers will have to learn to live with a market that is growing at a much slower pace than in the past several years.

Canon and Nikon may actually be the best positioned to adapt to the changing market, because until the explosion of digital technology, I'm pretty sure the growth in the film and SLR market was pretty modest.

customer base is aging out.
Yes, that's what I sort of was thinking of also with my point 3 - no newcomers. Older people grew up in an age without digital devices. Snapshots where taken with polariod, or Instamatics, later P&S cameras. A bit more serious users would have had to get an SLR. But the sensor was exchangeable (film - no upgrade incentive for the body), and once you had a decent body, it could last a long time. AF was a technological breakthrough, leading to be an upgrade cycle. So, the old-time SLR customer base is certainly one that can be catered to with dSLRs.
However, young people of the P&S variety (what would have been a polaroid/instamatic customer base etc. in the past) are satisfied with their smart phones now. I don't think most of these would ever have been customers of SLRs in the past either. The customer segment that sticks with smart phones nowadays might perhaps be larger than the comparable instamatic customer segment of the past, because of the following points:
The display devices and the internet. In the past, for high quality stuff, people would often use slides, to be projected and viewed, perhaps with friends. This is now superseded by monitors and TVs, which presently deliver much less resolution than what cameras deliver. Further, images are quickly spread via internet. So, on the one hand you don't need supergreat resolution, because most display devices don't handle it. Second, you can look now at so many good pictures on the internet, we are virtually flooded by it.
So, a newcomer might think "Do I really need a dSLR" to take yet another picture of a duck or the New York skyline - I'll never compete with what's out there, so I shoot mostly for memories, and the phone will do. So, overall, the incentive to step from a "good enough" to dSLR might be less than in the past, because of all the new technologies.

Seriously, for all the ones clamoring for a D800. How many high-tech landscape images do we need? 99.9 % of people view on monitors or tv, so 36 MPs is mostly overkill. Large prints? How many are really printed big and hung on the limited wall space there is? So, the final market for the full capabilities of a D800 is actually rather limited.


Expanding world economy.
Yes, this is a classic practice for hundreds of years, if your home market is saturated, expand. That's why there was this push for the global economy, to expand markets, to keep the growth model. Alas, who are you going to sell to next? The martians? So, an alternative (taken by e.g. Apple) is innovation - but there is only such much innovation until some technical limitation hits (e.g. how much can you still improve an iphone, it's a similar problem to dSLRs), which requires then a breakthrough again. For many portable devices a real bottleneck is the battery that is limiting, because that limits how much processing power you can stick into the device. Even in a dSLR, if you had more processing power, you could probably jack up many things, providing more precessing power for various features, including imaging processing, i.e. frame rate, automatic lens correction, diffraction reduction, noise reduction, etc.

again, great points. I don't think it's as bleak and growth starved as you though - for instance, following your model - boy meets girl, boy and girl go out, now during the day time that cell phone gets you great shots, but once the sun goes down, all those shots are blurry (one day that will even change as they push to make smaller sensors take in more light). Girl gets frustrated. Boy buys girl a nice camera (a dslr).

I know your not saying the dslr market is dead, but, yeah, it is narrowing down to mostly the upgrading crowd, but there are still going to be newcomers - just not as many as in the past decade.

I think cell phones also face the same issue as slr's - just like lots of websites, the drive to innovate a product that's already innovated leads to a lot of marginal upgrades, or upgrades that just don't make sense, or upgrades that do make sense but not with the general consumer client. Take that d800, it's a monster on paper, but, unless you need that kind of power are you taking the leap? Of course, some will buy it because it's a monster on paper, and rarely use it, kind of like the good old i need a nicer car than the neighbors idea, its a status symbol. Either way, cell phones face the same issue, what else do you do that isn't a marginal upgrade? Of course, it's harder to say no to cell upgrades because they aren't really designed to last for more than a year and a half - and thats one thing i am glad for --- even rebels have a decent shelf life. It is one of the things that surprise me about the cell phone market actually, how easily we are all duped into buying these things that break so easily (it's cheap if you can make your phone last that 2 years...heehaw...cheap upgrade ---but if it dies in a year...your coughing up close to an slr's $$$ on a phone!!!)

Either way, there is still a market for slr's. I said it before - we're between product cycles on upper end models. And the entry level bodies, those are the ones people are stepping into less and less due to cell phone silliness. It should be interesting to see what these #'s do in 2014 - with Canon putting the 7d2 on the market, and maybe the big mp beast, and whatever nikon has on the release table. If these models do kick ass, then canon will have a turn around in 2014, then a slow 2015 as they ramp up for the 5d4 and the 1dx2

 

[noisejammer]

...Here is my message ... I NEED LESS NOISE ...

I'm not going to spend kilodollars on a camera that's just like the one I have.
...
The real issue is well earned customer apathy.

Spend half that on a 6D now, sell the other two, and rent a 1DX...and tell me it doesn't have lower noise than the 1D4. It does...and has better autofocus. As I said above, Canon will bring you a high megapixel studio camera with low noise, but be prepared to pay big for it. If you'd rather use Nikon for the here and now, certainly a D800 is a cheaper and quicker alternative to waiting for a Canon studio camera. They've sold the D800 new as low as $2600 recently, and may again...I personally will pass.

Rather than write another boring complaint, I guess I need to spell out why I'm delighted Canon's ILS sales are down.

It means the board will have words with the camera executives. Even if the market size is decreasing, the board will want to minimise the loss of earnings. Canon will try to grab a bigger slice of the pie, which means more interesting products and less drip feed. From my perspective, this cannot be bad.

Unfortunately, they seem determined to let others grab the pie first. This cannot be good.

 

[dgatwood]

And then there's the 6D. If you can live with a more limited AF system for tracking moving subjects and focusing on off-centre targets, and the x-sync speed - or smaller and lighter is critical to you - it will give great images and at a significantly lower cost. And I think the reality for a lot of people is they can live with those limitations because, as much as they might like to have a camera with fancier specs, in practice their photography doesn't really need it. And Canon threw in a few bells and whistles too, such as wifi and GPS, presumably to help attract some of the upgraders - but I doubt there are too many 5DIII who are coveting a 6D just because of wifi and GPS. (I'm sure there are some 5DIII owners who'd be happy to have the features, I'm just saying I struggle to believe the majority of 5DIII owners would rate wifi and GPS as that important, at least in comparison to the advantages the 5DIII over the 6D.)

I considered both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III, but decided GPS was more important to me than AF performance or megapixels. I haven't regretted that call, and I've found Wi-Fi to be a lot more useful than I would ever have guessed, too. Either way, if Canon had introduced those features consistently across their line, I'd probably be using an upgraded 1D or 5D series model instead of the 6D.

(Okay probably not the 1D series, because until just now, I didn't realize they had switched from being a 1.3x crop to a full frame, and I didn't have much interest in a crop body that would still force me to upgrade all my EF-S lenses. But still....)

So the question you should be asking is not how many 5D users consider GPS or Wi-Fi important (because they made that choice clear with their buying decision), but rather how many 6D users would have considered spending the extra money for the 5D or 1D series if they had not lacked those features. The answer might surprise you.

 

[jdramirez]

And then there's the 6D. If you can live with a more limited AF system for tracking moving subjects and focusing on off-centre targets, and the x-sync speed - or smaller and lighter is critical to you - it will give great images and at a significantly lower cost. And I think the reality for a lot of people is they can live with those limitations because, as much as they might like to have a camera with fancier specs, in practice their photography doesn't really need it. And Canon threw in a few bells and whistles too, such as wifi and GPS, presumably to help attract some of the upgraders - but I doubt there are too many 5DIII who are coveting a 6D just because of wifi and GPS. (I'm sure there are some 5DIII owners who'd be happy to have the features, I'm just saying I struggle to believe the majority of 5DIII owners would rate wifi and GPS as that important, at least in comparison to the advantages the 5DIII over the 6D.)

I considered both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III, but decided GPS was more important to me than AF performance or megapixels. I haven't regretted that call, and I've found Wi-Fi to be a lot more useful than I would ever have guessed, too. Either way, if Canon had introduced those features consistently across their line, I'd probably be using an upgraded 1D or 5D series model instead of the 6D.

(Okay probably not the 1D series, because until just now, I didn't realize they had switched from being a 1.3x crop to a full frame, and I didn't have much interest in a crop body that would still force me to upgrade all my EF-S lenses. But still....)

So the question you should be asking is not how many 5D users consider GPS or Wi-Fi important (because they made that choice clear with their buying decision), but rather how many 6D users would have considered spending the extra money for the 5D or 1D series if they had not lacked those features. The answer might surprise you.

for me personally, I had zero interest in both gps and wifi. I'd rather have a magnesium core. I had a truck, a chevy s-10, and it had a metal bumper... and i was hit a few times in the rear... and once at only 5 or 6 miles per hour, the guys hood and bumper looked ravaged while I didn't even have a scratch. I know the polycarbonate core is strong, but give me the feel, strength, and reliability of a magnesium core... just in case.

 

[Loswr]

I considered both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III, but decided GPS was more important to me than AF performance or megapixels.

...how many 6D users would have considered spending the extra money for the 5D or 1D series if they had not lacked those features. The answer might surprise you.

A simple add-on accessory provides GPS tagging to the 1D X and 5DIII. I highly doubt that many people opted for the 6D over the 5DIII for built-in GPS, rather, the overwhelming majority made that choice because the 6D costs much less.

As for someone who 'considered the 1D X' but didn't even know what size sensor was inside it... :

 

[jd7]

I considered both the 1DX and the 5D Mark III, but decided GPS was more important to me than AF performance or megapixels. I haven't regretted that call, and I've found Wi-Fi to be a lot more useful than I would ever have guessed, too. Either way, if Canon had introduced those features consistently across their line, I'd probably be using an upgraded 1D or 5D series model instead of the 6D.

(Okay probably not the 1D series, because until just now, I didn't realize they had switched from being a 1.3x crop to a full frame, and I didn't have much interest in a crop body that would still force me to upgrade all my EF-S lenses. But still....)

So the question you should be asking is not how many 5D users consider GPS or Wi-Fi important (because they made that choice clear with their buying decision), but rather how many 6D users would have considered spending the extra money for the 5D or 1D series if they had not lacked those features. The answer might surprise you.

I have to say I'm surprised! And intrigued. What sort of photography do you do that means you were willing to pay for the features the 5Diii has over the 6D but nonetheless inbuilt GPS was even more important to you? I'm assuming it involves a lot of travel, but I'm guessing there is something more involved(?).

 

[AvTvM]

it is very simple. Canon and Nikon are being punished for not having brought to market DSLRs that are both affordable and interesting to regular-income photo enthusiasts. Lack of interesting products ... less sales. 1 Million less incrementally boring DSLR-iterations ... hahaha, I love it. Customers are king, after all.

Two years ago (late 2012) Canon and Nikon missed the boat. No compelling and affordable APS-C DSLRs. No D400. No 7D II. Pricing closer to USD 1000 than to 2000. Of course with built- in GPS, Wifi, and in Canon's case EX-RT radio flash trigger. And fully articulated LCD (not just tilt!). For Canon the old 45-point 1 AF system plus a kick-ass 24MP APS-C sensor, half a notch better DR and Hi-ISO than the Nikon D7100 sensor. Nikon would have easily gotten away with the D7100 sensor and AF system (Multicam 3500DX).

And today, CaNikon are missing the boat again, because they have no mirrorless FF MILCs ready now and it looks they will not even have one ready within the year.

These days, only a few budget-restricted, conservative die-hards insisting on OVF are willing to swallow marketing-crippled FF DSLRs (6D, D610) still priced at more than 1500. All others are buying Fuji APS-C instead and/or are will be buying innovative and more affordable FF-mirrorless cams.

CaNikon are in for a lot of punishment. Well deserved.

 

[J.R.]

it is very simple. Canon and Nikon are being punished for not having brought to market DSLRs that are both affordable and interesting to regular-income photo enthusiasts. Lack of interesting products ... less sales. 1 Million less incrementally boring DSLR-iterations ... hahaha, I love it. Customers are king, after all.

Two years ago (late 2012) Canon and Nikon missed the boat. No compelling and affordable APS-C DSLRs. No D400. No 7D II. Pricing closer to USD 1000 than to 2000. Of course with built- in GPS, Wifi, and in Canon's case EX-RT radio flash trigger. And fully articulated LCD (not just tilt!). For Canon the old 45-point 1 AF system plus a kick-ass 24MP APS-C sensor, half a notch better DR and Hi-ISO than the Nikon D7100 sensor. Nikon would have easily gotten away with the D7100 sensor and AF system (Multicam 3500DX).

And today, CaNikon are missing the boat again, because they have no mirrorless FF MILCs ready now and it looks they will not even have one ready within the year.

These days, only a few budget-restricted, conservative die-hards insisting on OVF are willing to swallow marketing-crippled FF DSLRs (6D, D610) still priced at more than 1500. All others are buying Fuji APS-C instead and/or are will be buying innovative and more affordable FF-mirrorless cams.

CaNikon are in for a lot of punishment. Well deserved.

Punished??? The whole market is down! It is the economy that is under tremendous punishment which is translating into lower sales of consumer goods.

Just because you need EVF and mirrorless doesn't necessary mean everyone wants them. BTW, how much profit did the fan favorite Sony with its EVF and high DR churn out??? : : :

Additionally, late 2012 was last year ... not two years ago : : :

 

[J.R.]

To put things into perspective, the following extracts from the Bloomberg report -

The value of worldwide camera shipments dropped 19 percent in August from a year earlier, a ninth consecutive monthly decline, according to the Camera & Imaging Products Association in Tokyo.

Operating income at the imaging system division, which handles cameras, rose 8.2 percent to 56.9 billion yen in the quarter ended Sept. 30 as revenue gained 8.2 percent.

The decline in demand for interchangeable lens cameras stems from sluggish economies especially in Europe and Asia, Chief Financial Officer Toshizo Tanaka, told reporters in Tokyo yesterday. “It’s a temporal decline and we expect demand to pick up next year as the global economy recovers.”

But as is the case at CR, people always claim to know better ... even it is means ignoring facts staring at them in the face.